Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 13:52:07 PM EDT

Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.

That, however, wasn't even the kicker. This was:

It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day. (emphasis my own)

Think about that for a second. She pretty much admits that the biggest decision rendered while she sat on the Supreme Court she provided the necessary vote to get it wrong and swing a presidential election. Perhaps this could have been somewhat understandable if George W. Bush had won the popular vote and there was a sense in the nation that the courts should step in to make sure the popular vote winner took office. That, however, was not the case. Bush lost the popular vote and her vote helped pave the way for the loser to take office.

Now, let's take it a step further. The decision in Bush v. Gore was issued per curiam, literally meaning 'by the court'. In such decision authorship is attributed to no specific justice and such decisions are usually restricted to cases that are either unanimous cases and uncontroversial cases. They usually do not occur in 5-4 cases, and certainly not in ones as controversial as Bush v. Gore. Yet, despite this, O'Connor helped make a 5-4 majority.

Then there's this language in the Court's opinion, language which has disturbed many since it first appeared:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances (emphasis my own), for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Our system of common law jurisprudence is based upon the notion that prior cases provide precedent for future cases. Past decisions can, of course, be limited or overturned by courts of equal standing to the one that made the decision initially. Here, however, the Court largely confessed that its decision was not to be taken as precedent. That any common law court admits, in the decision itself, that the decision is not to be taken as precedent for any future cases is tantamount to an admission that the decision is not based upon the law, but, rather, based solely upon the will and preferences of the majority. That is what Sandra Day O'Connor signed her name to in the court's per curiam opinion.

In closing, I suggest reading (or re-reading) this article written by Vincent Bugliosi at the outset of the Bush Administration back in 2001.

...was there any other legal recourse that could have been realistically pursued? As I recall Gore was praised for accepting the decision and not putting the electoral process under further stress.....but what a price we have all payed for that election. Respect and deference were given to those who had not earned it, did not deserve it, and squandered the opportunity to govern.

he could not look his fellow Justices in the eye after that vote. He doggedly stuck it out in order to allow a democratically elected President to name his replacement. One of the outstanding jurists to sit on that bench who is rightly revered in certain circles. Such a perfectionist is hard to take for folks who grapple with admitting their own limitations so history generally isn't kind to them but there will always be those who know better.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

in those qualities on that bench, it's not nearly as distinguished as mythology insists. We've had some outstanding jurists but most of them are at best mediocre. Like O'Connor, she was mediocre in all qualities needed for the job and so her contributions were the same. Her decisions were hard to read for looking for the legal logic in them, not like Scalia's which are painful because of the level of hateful bombast. History will discard him to join Taney.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

decision and the decision to attack Iraq. The presidential election went to Bush after the Court said there wasn't enough time to find out the truth. Prior to attacking Iraq, though the weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD, though we'd had a no-fly zone and aerial surveillance in place for more than a decade, we supposedly didn't have enough time to find out the truth.